Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.54 seconds)

Malkiat Singh & Anr vs Joginder Singh & Ors on 2 December, 1997

The court relied on mainly the decision in Malkiat Singh and Anr. v. Joginder Singh and Ors. . In that case, appellants were tried for the murder of one Harpal Singh and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the Sessions Court. Respondent filed a suit in the court of Sub Judge for Rs. One lakh for deprivation of the income to the family members which they used to get from the deceased Harpal Singh. The claim was contested by the appellants. They filed written statement and engaged a counsel. Two witnesses were examined and cross-examined. Thereafter, counsel for the appellant submitted that he has no instructions and ex parte decree was consequently passed. The court observed that on the facts of the case, appellants were neither careless nor negligent as their counsel did not inform them the date of posting and further noticed that after counsel reported no instructions, the court did not issue fresh notice and, therefore, they have got a sufficient cause on the facts of the case to set aside the ex parte decree. The ex parte decree was set aside as sufficient reasons for their absence was established as provided under Order IX Rule 13.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 123 - V N Khare - Full Document

Tahil Ram Issardas Sadarangani And ... vs Ramchand Issardas Sadarangani And ... on 16 October, 1992

In Tahil Ram Issardas Sadarangani and Ors. v. Ramchand Issardas Sadarangani and Anr. 1993 Suppl (3) SCC 256, the court found that the advocate withdrew the appearance after filing vakalath and there was nothing to show that the petitioner had notice of the date of hearing. The court observed that application for restoration was dismissed on the ground that it is not proper for the advocate to report no instructions without informing him. It was found that defendants were not aware of the postings and on the facts and circumstances of that case, the suit was restored as ingredients of Order IX Rule 13 CPC are established.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 105 - Full Document
1   2 Next